Search ideas

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing ranking order, snippet bracketing, matched_fields, and the any-word fallback rule with its 'matched' indicator — real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The scope (what is searched) is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences cover ranking, snippet format, and fallback matching. It is somewhat dense and leans on return-format detail, but every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description is not obligated to explain return values, yet it still clarifies snippet and matched-field semantics and the relaxed matching fallback, which prevents misinterpretation of results. Only the relationship to sibling listing tools is left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks by spelling out which fields the query string actually matches against, which is the key semantic an agent needs to phrase a query.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (full-text search) and enumerates the exact resource fields searched (titles, domains, problems, insights, assumptions, tags), which cleanly separates it from get_idea and list_ideas. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'full-text search' and the field list, but the description never states when to prefer this over list_ideas or get_idea, nor any conditions or exclusions. It gives enough to infer the use case but no explicit routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.